GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:25 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck
In reply to: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
Too bad this comment thread just seems to be about name-calling.
My guess is that if the FSF produces a license that is acceptable to enough of the big players (e.g. Sun, for Java and Solaris; developers of other interesting projects), we'll probably wind up seeing an evolutionary approach that will work things out for those who still have problems, and we'll see "GPL v2 or any later version" code more and more, possibly motivated by non-ideological folks who just want to share code between Linux and Solaris kernels. As GPLv3 code becomes more common and the world doesn't end, the battle will cool off.
And maybe we'll wind up seeing the Linux kernel have GPLv3 parts with a special exception striking the anti-DRM language. Many of the corporate contributors might like that a whole lot, since they generally prefer
the draft GPLv3 patent language to the GPLv2 patent language.
Or maybe we won't and the Linux kernel will stay GPLv2. It's not really all that big a deal.
to post comments)